Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's leak freakout (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  what legally binding agreement did the AP sign? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, JVolvo

    also, I sure as hell expect more from government than just "legal."  Better, even.  Yes, I know it's subjective.

    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:33:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  seriously? (0+ / 0-)

      you can't be that dense we are talking about the people illegally leaking information and that gives the government the right to conduct an investigation including lawfully and properly looking at the AP's phone records.

      And you know what? I expect the law from the government not some subjective bullshit because it's just as possible that the subjective bullshit is things I will not like as it is that it will be things I will like.

      The law exists to make sure everyone is treated equally and yes that's not pefectly executed but the imperfect system we have is far better then what you seem to be proposing.

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:43:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

        it may be legal for the government to issue subpoenas without a judge's approval but that sure as fuck doesn't mean it isn't an abuse.

        And you know what? I expect the law from the government not some subjective bullshit because it's just as possible that the subjective bullshit is things I will not like as it is that it will be things I will like.
        "Follow the law" is a good minimum standard for the government or for anyone else.  It is however never enough from the government or from anyone else.

        For example, if a person has been duly tried and convicted, it's perfectly legal for the president and/or governor to have the person executed even if the executive happens to know that the person is absolutely innocent.  There is no legal requirement for the president to pardon an innocent person, in fact it's a violation of traditional norms to pardon a person who hasn't acknowledged guilt.

        Should a president pardon an absolutely guilty convict facing execution?  Fuck yes.  But it's perfectly legal not to.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:02:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

          this is an utterly juvenile argument

          What's next? You gonna yell you can't make me some?

          If you want to discuss the law fine let's discuss this but it's utterly dishonest to pretend that this was anything but a legal investigation of people breaking the law and the agreements they have signed.

          We are never going to agree about your subjective views because you don't seem to understand the inherent danger of subjectivity.

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:22:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If good is subjective (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

            then you can never achieve good through objectivity.  Should government abandon the idea of being good?

            Other subjective ideas:
            --Justice
            --Compassion
            --Competence
            --Objectivity

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:52:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you can play semantics all you want (0+ / 0-)

              But Objectivity is not subjective neither is competence nor justice and while you might have a point on compassion it really doesn't matter because all of that is entirely a strawman.

              And give me objectivity any day over zealots convinced that 'their way' is the only way. It makes no difference to me whether it's you or the pro right or anyone else more evil has been done in the name of 'good' then just about anything else except 'god' (and even then I'd argue that those two are linked anyways)

              In the time that I have been given,
              I am what I am

              by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:27:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Einstein: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo
                As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
                Objectivity itself is only objective if we first agree what we should be measuring, which of course we don't.

                If justice were objective then every country in the world would have the same concept of justice, which they don't.  Plus, every supreme court justice would agree except the corrupt ones.  They don't.

                Competence is the most subjective of the lot.  I think you're an incompetent ethicist.  But your competence certainly depends on who is evaluating it and for what purpose.  If you are not an airline pilot, then your ability to land a 747 does not improve your competence.  If you work in a dangerous job, then your diligence in keeping your coworkers safe is seen as competence by your peers.  It may be seen as incompetence by your boss, who perceives it as unnecessary delay.  The right wingers consider Obama incompetent because he hasn't invaded any countries that didn't attack us, which is precisely the biggest argument some of us can see for his competence.

                I want a government that is competent, and there is no objective standard for what competence means in government.

                You:

                And give me objectivity any day over zealots convinced that 'their way' is the only way.
                Unless we agree on what the purpose of government is, and the yardsticks used to measure progress in that regard (both of which are extremely subjective matters), then it's totally useless to talk about objectivity in government.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:02:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you really shouldn't bring Einstien into this (0+ / 0-)

                  as you will get yourself embarrased.

                  Further that's still off topic we're not talking math here bud. Are you incapable of dealing with the topic? I gotta ask because you are pushing these strawmen awefully hard.

                  As to the rest of your ramblings,

                  Objectivity is by definition not subjective thus you only look like a fool for claiming otherwise. If you want to redefine objectivity be my guest but be prepared to be looked at as stranged as soemone that wants to say the color blue is actually red.

                  Competence is entirely subjective either you are or you are not by a set of criteria. Once again you demonstrate you don't have a flying clue what you are talking about. You may not like my arguments but that doesn't make them incompetent. That you would have to prove which is the exact opposite of subjectivity.

                  And I agree that this is likely useless because you sound like one of those relativists and frankly it's hard to take those types all that seriously.

                  In the time that I have been given,
                  I am what I am

                  by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:15:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dRefractor, DeadHead
                    If you want to redefine objectivity be my guest but be prepared to be looked at as stranged as soemone that wants to say the color blue is actually red.
                    Ok, fine.

                    The question of what "objective" means in any given context outside of pure mathematics or theoretical physics is subjective. Otherwise,

                    1. Only facts are objective.
                    2. The question of whether any particular objective fact is relevant to any particular policy discussion is NEVER objective.

                    Thus, there is no such thing as objectivity in any meaningful discussion of politics.

                    Is that better?
                    Or to mangle Einstein, "To the extent that facts are objective, they are not objectively relevant to politics, and to the extent they are objectively relevant to politics, they are not objective."

                    Competence is entirely subjective either you are or you are not by a set of criteria.
                    ...and who gets to write the criteria?
                    You may not like my arguments but that doesn't make them incompetent.
                    I didn't say they were incompetent.  I will say they are incompetent from a subjective philosophical standpoint... but I confess that that's subjective.
                    That you would have to prove which is the exact opposite of subjectivity.
                    Only if I tried to prove them wrong from every point of view!
                    And I agree that this is likely useless because you sound like one of those relativists and frankly it's hard to take those types all that seriously.
                    Is that meant as an insult?  Well, you sound like one of those legalists who think that the legality of an act is more important than the morality.

                    And I have to take those types very seriously, because they're fucking scary.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:06:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  if you want to play that game (0+ / 0-)

                      then apparently chemistry is not objective according to you either then which is a shock to me as a chemist. I must go tell my profs that all those reactions only really work cause we want them to.

                      See this is the problem with relativists, you think yourself so clever and yet leave massive gaps in your logic. But then again I bet you will tell me logic isn't objective either.

                      And you are seriously trying to move the goal posts here mister would be philospher this is about a legal investigation into leaks not politics. So even if you had a point it would still not be on topic here.

                      I am not going to have a debate with you on the merits of relativistic ethics/philosphy not only is it utterly off topic I am not convinced you even understand the topic. I will say this, nothing I have said was meant as an insult to you personally it is however hard to take most relativists seriously as they are so busy trying to 'prove'  that there is no objectivity they miss the irony in their actions.

                      I really don't care what label you stick on me I stand by my point that 'good' is an utterly stupid way to approach most matters, especially government. Because 'good' is so utterly subjective that it could literally be anything. I'd rather have the government covered objectively by the law and have a debate on said law then your way.

                      More over that is how it is anyways right now so for you to be 'outraged' that the goverment doesn't function by your subjective notions is as strange as ranting at the rain because it dares to do as it wishes.

                      PS yes you indeed passive aggressively called my argument incomptent, at least own your words

                      In the time that I have been given,
                      I am what I am

                      by duhban on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:50:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  And guess what... (0+ / 0-)

      AP is not being prosecuted.

      False Equivalence is False Equivalence.

      •  AP is being harmed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Aucoin, JVolvo

        regardless of whether they're actually facing prosecution.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:03:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is it being harmed. (0+ / 0-)

          Care to explain?  Or did you just pull it out of your rear end?

          •  because (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo

            Confidentiality of sources?

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:15:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  confidentiality of sources (0+ / 0-)

              means that the government cannot force the journalist to name sources. That's what a shield law does.

              It has fuckall to do with anyone (including the government) using other legal means to determine the source.

              47 is the new 51!

              by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:18:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Focus, nickrud. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                You asked what the harm was.  When I showed you what the harm was, you moved the goalposts and argued something else entirely.

                Exposing all of the AP's sources, which is what happened here, is a big deal.  Governments shouldn't do that even if it is legal.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:40:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  no, you're the one (0+ / 0-)

                  that brought up confidentiality of sources. It has a particular meaning. You can't change the definition. Being a source to a reporters story isn't a get out of jail free card, which is what you seem to want to define it as.

                  47 is the new 51!

                  by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:23:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok, fine (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dRefractor, JVolvo

                    your semantics is bullshit, but if we're going to play that way the harm suffered by AP is that many of their sources know that they are now subject to special scrutiny from the government, and even if they have done nothing wrong that can and will be used against them.  Also, it we harder for every investigative reporter in the country to find unauthorized sources willing to talk to them.

                    That's what I meant by confidentiality of sources. Anyone who talked about anything, legal or otherwise, is open to reprisals now.

                    Authorized sources, of course, have nothing to worry about.  So the powers that be will have even more of a monopoly on the public discourse than they do now.

                    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:23:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  AP is not subject to (0+ / 0-)

                      'special scrutiny' - the investigation of the fox reporter disproves that specious argument. As well as the multitude of laws protecting journalists that have been passed over the decades.

                      Oh, and 'reprisals now'? Your historical horizon seems to be pretty short. Plame ring a bell?

                      47 is the new 51!

                      by nickrud on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:17:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Plame was burned (0+ / 0-)

                        because her husband spoke openly, not confidentially.  Now  EVERYONE who spoke to AP is similarly exposed, even if they thought they were speaking confidentially.

                        Honestly, don't you see how giving government the power to do that on a whim is dangerous?

                        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                        by happymisanthropy on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:19:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  AP's fault (0+ / 0-)

              If the AP hadn't started a shitstorm over the phone records, no one would know that they were possibly unable to keep their sources secret. Any harm done to the AP was 100% the fault of the AP.

              •  you think (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                that can be kept secret forever?  NOTHING should EVER be kept secret forever.  No exceptions.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:29:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That ball has dropped (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens

              Back when Patrick Fitzgerald locked Judy Miller's ass up.

              BTW, Confidentiality of sources has nothing to do with the government's ability to investigate a leak.  The reporter can keep their sources confidential all they want, but if a crime was committed, the government has the power and responsibility to investigate.

              •  whuuuuuh? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo
                That ball has dropped (1+ / 0-)
                Back when Patrick Fitzgerald locked Judy Miller's ass up.
                That was a REAL subpoena, authorized by a judge at the request of a grand jury.  Not a fishing license to spy on a hundred reporters carried out by the executive branch alone with no judicial oversight.

                You know, the whole separation of powers thing?  Probable cause?  Sound familiar?

                BTW, Confidentiality of sources has nothing to do with the government's ability to investigate a leak.  The reporter can keep their sources confidential all they want, but if a crime was committed, the government has the power and responsibility to investigate.
                Government can investigate a reporter's sources (or in this case, numerous reporters' sources).  If it does, then their confidentiality is very much in danger.

                Thus, harm.  That was my point, regardless of whether you want to play semantic games about what "confidentiality of sources" means.

                What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:38:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site